(HC) Griffin v. Martinez ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT LEE GRIFFIN, Case No. 1:17-cv-01137-DAD-JDP 12 Petitioner, ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 60 DAYS 14 JOEL D. MARTINEZ, ECF No. 31 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Robert Lee Griffin, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 30. On April 17, 2020, we issued an order to show 19 cause why the amended petition should not be dismissed as untimely. ECF No. 31. In his 20 response to our order to show cause, petitioner stated that he misunderstood the habeas 21 requirements for timely filing his amended petition under Kelly v. Small, 315 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 22 (9th Cir. 2003). ECF No. 32. On April 29, 2020, we issued an informational order explaining the 23 requirements for timely filing under Kelly. ECF No. 33. On May 22, 2020, petitioner responded 24 to our informational order, stating that he is unable to conduct legal research in support of his 25 response to our order to show cause due to COVID-19 law library restrictions.1 ECF No. 34. We 26 1 Petitioner also requests to either proceed with only his four claims of trial error in his original 27 petition or that he be granted to leave to proceed with his amended petition. ECF No. 34. Because petitioner’s amended petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims, he must 28 show that either his new claims are timely under AEDPA’s statute of limitations or that his new 4.41 VV VALI IOLA SLT MVVULITICIIL OY PHM VVrvocy rPaywt evre 1 | will construe petitioner’s response as a motion for extension of time. For good cause shown, we 2 | will grant petitioner an additional 60 days to respond to our order to show cause. His response is 3 | now due July 22, 2020. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: _ June 2, 2020 7 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 | No. 202 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 claims “relate back” to his original claims. See King v. Ryan, 564 F.3d 1133, 1140-41 (9th Cir. 25 2009). Petitioner has not met either of these requirements. Therefore, in his response to our 26 | order to show cause, petitioner must clearly state whether he wishes to proceed with his original four claims only, or, in the alternative, he must demonstrate that his new claims are timely under 27 | Kelly. If petitioner seeks to proceed with his amended petition and fails to demonstrate that he meets the requirements of Kelly, he will proceed with his original petition. 28